四分律

Thích Nguyên Chứng - Thích Đức Thắng

Revised and Annotated

XXXIX. PUTTING UNGIVEN THINGS INTO THE MOUTH^[239]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove, in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, a bhikshu^[240] in the city of Śrāvastī thought, “I should always go on almsround wearing a rag robe.”^[241] He then acted according to this thought.

At that time, householders in the city of Śrāvastī, whose parents, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, sons, or daughters had died, prepared food and drink and arranged sacrificial offerings at crossroads, gateways, riverbanks, beneath trees, beside rocks, or in shrines.

The almsgoing bhikshu took these offerings on his own and ate them. Seeing this, the householders all criticized him, saying, “The Śākyan ascetics are shameless; they commit the offense of taking what has not been given. Outwardly they proclaim that they practice the true Dharma. What true Dharma can there be in this? We prepare food and drink as sacrificial offerings for our deceased parents, brothers, sisters, and others, yet they take and eat it. It seems as though we prepared this food and drink, placed it there, and offered it to them! In truth, we set out this food as a sacrificial offering because our parents, brothers, sisters, and others had died, yet they take it and eat it as they please.”

When the bhikshus heard of this, those among them who had few desires and were content, practiced the dhuta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread criticized the almsgoing bhikshu:

“Almsgoing bhikshu, when the householders in the city of Śrāvastī prepared food as sacrificial offerings for their deceased parents, brothers, sisters, and others, why did you take it and eat it as you pleased?”

The bhikshus then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. Because of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikshus and, using innumerable means, rebuked that bhikshu:

“What you did was wrong. It was not in accordance with proper conduct, not the Dharma of an ascetic, not pure conduct, and not conduct in harmony with the training. You did what should not have been done. Almsgoing bhikshu, why did you take and eat as you pleased the sacrificial food of the householders in the city of Śrāvastī?”

After the Blessed One had used innumerable means to rebuke that almsgoing bhikshu, he told the bhikshus:

“This foolish almsgoing bhikshu is a place in which many seeds of the outflows are planted and is the first offender against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikshus, I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikshu puts into his mouth food or medicine that has not been formally given and received,^[242] he commits a pāyattika offense.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikshus in this way. At that time, the bhikshus became doubtful regarding this matter and did not dare to take tooth-sticks or drinking water with their own hands. The Buddha said:

“A bhikshu who takes a tooth-stick or drinking water with his own hands does not commit an offense.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikshu puts into his mouth food or medicine that has not been formally given and received,^[243] except for water and tooth-sticks,^[244] he commits a pāyattika offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikshu: the meaning is as explained above.

Not given:^[245] means that it has not yet been formally given and received.

Receiving: there are five ways of receiving. One receives from hand to hand; one receives in the hand something conveyed by an implement; one receives with an implement something conveyed by hand; one receives with an implement something conveyed by an implement; or, from a distance, something is conveyed by an implement for the recipient to take, while both giver and recipient know that there is a space between them and no obstructing contact, and the given object falls into the recipient’s hand. These are called the five ways of receiving.

There are also five ways of receiving food: it is given by means of the body and received by means of the body; it is given by means of a robe or cloth and received by means of a robe or cloth; one arm is bent to give and the other arm is bent to receive; it is given in a container and received in a container; or, when there is a reason, it is placed on the ground as an offering. These are called the five ways of receiving food.^[246]

Khādanīya food: food made from roots, up to and including food that has been finely ground.

Food:^[247] includes rice, flour cakes, dried rice, meat, and fish.

Bhojanīya food: includes ghee, oil, fresh butter, honey, and molasses.^[248]

If a bhikshu takes with his own hand food that has not been formally given, puts it into his mouth, and eats it, except for water and tooth-sticks, [664a1] he commits one pāyattika offense with each mouthful. If he eats at an improper time or beyond the improper time, he commits a pāyattika offense. If he receives seven-day medicine and uses it after seven days, he commits a pāyattika offense.

If, without a reason, he uses lifetime medicine that has not been formally given and received, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If it has not been formally given and received and he perceives it as not having been formally given and received, he commits a pāyattika offense. If it has not been formally given and received and he is doubtful, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

If it has been received but he conceives it as not received, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If it has been received but he is doubtful, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

A bhikshuni commits a pāyattika offense. A śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī commits a duṣkṛta offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense when one takes water or a tooth-stick; or when milk, oil, or fat that has not been formally given and received is dripped into the nose, flows into the mouth, and is then spat out entirely, with only a residue remaining.^[249] There is no offense when, while a bhikshu is on almsround, a bird carrying food drops it into his bowl or the wind blows food into his bowl, and he wishes to remove that food and removes as much as he can, even down to an amount the size of a fingernail, with only a residue remaining.

Those who do not commit an offense are: the first offender before the precept was established, one who is insane, one whose mind is deranged, one who is tormented by pain, or one who is under duress.

XL. REQUESTING FINE FOOD^[250]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove, in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, Bhadrananda the Śākyan had a merchant chief as his donor. When it was time to go on almsround, Bhadrananda the Śākyan put on his robe, took up his bowl, went to the merchant chief’s house, and said:

“Today I wish to obtain fine food.”^[251]

The merchant chief asked:

“Venerable sir, what illness do you have today that causes you to desire such food?”

He replied:

“I have no illness at all. I merely wish to obtain such food.”

The merchant chief said:

“We are merchants who make our living through trade, yet even we cannot obtain such food, much less one who has gone forth.”

At that time, an almsgoing bhikshu heard these words and criticized Bhadrananda the Śākyan:

“Why do you request such fine food^[252] solely for yourself?”

After the almsgoing bhikshu had eaten, he returned to the Sanghārāma and related this matter to the bhikshus. Those among them who had few desires and were content, practiced the dhuta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread criticized Bhadrananda the Śākyan:

“Why do you request such fine food solely for yourself?”

The bhikshus went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported this matter fully to the Blessed One. Because of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikshus and, using innumerable means, rebuked Bhadrananda the Śākyan:

“What you did was wrong. It was not in accordance with proper conduct, not the Dharma of an ascetic, not pure conduct, and not conduct in harmony with the training. You did what should not have been done. Bhadrananda, why did you request such fine food solely for yourself?”

After the Blessed One had used innumerable means to rebuke Bhadrananda, he told the bhikshus:

“This foolish Bhadrananda is a place in which many seeds of the outflows are planted and is the first offender against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikshus, I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If there are fine foods such as milk, butter, fish, and meat, and a bhikkhu, merely for himself, asks for and eats such delicious food, it is a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One thus established this precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, when the sick bhikkhus heard this, they were afraid and did not dare to ask; nor did they dare to ask on behalf of sick bhikkhus, and when they received such food, they did not dare to eat it.

The Buddha said:

“From now on, a sick bhikkhu is permitted to ask; another may ask on behalf of a sick bhikkhu. Having obtained it by asking, he is permitted to eat it.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If there are^[253] fine foods^[254] such as milk, butter, fish, and meat, and a bhikkhu who is not ill, merely for himself, asks for and eats such delicious food,^[255] it is a pācittiya offense.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Fine foods: milk, butter, fish, and meat.

Illness: even being without sufficient strength to remain seated until one has finished a meal.^[256]

If a bhikkhu who is not ill asks for and eats such fine food for himself, he commits one pācittiya offense with each mouthful.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if one who is ill asks for it himself; if one asks on behalf of an ill person; if one obtains it while going for alms and eats it; if one asks on behalf of another or another asks on one’s behalf; or if one obtains it without asking. In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not commit an offense are: one who committed the first offense before the precept was established, one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLI. GIVING FOOD TO FOLLOWERS OF OTHER PATHS^[257]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was traveling with one thousand two hundred and fifty disciples from the country of Kosala to the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, donors offered the Buddha and the Sangha a great many cakes. The Blessed One then told the Venerable Ānanda:

“Distribute these cakes among the Sangha.”

The Venerable Ānanda obeyed the Buddha’s instruction and distributed them. After the distribution, some remained. The Buddha told the Venerable Ānanda to give them to the beggars. The Venerable obeyed the Buddha’s instruction and gave one to each person. Among those beggars was a beautiful female naked ascetic of another path.^[258] When the Venerable Ānanda distributed the cakes, two cakes were stuck together, and, thinking them to be one, he gave them to her. She asked the woman standing nearby:

“How many did you receive?”

The other woman replied:

“I received one.”

After answering, that woman asked her in turn:

“How many did you receive?”

She said:

“I received two.”

The woman then said to her:

“That bhikkhu is having illicit relations with you; that is why you received two.”

When the Venerable Ānanda heard these words, he became deeply distressed. The bhikkhus who heard of them were also displeased.

Among the people who had gathered there was a brahmacārin^[259] who, after receiving this food, continued along the road toward Kosala. On the way, he encountered a devout brahmin who practiced physiognomy. The brahmin asked:

“Where have you come from?”

The brahmacārin replied:

“I have come from Śrāvastī.”

The brahmin asked:

“Well then, is it very easy to beg for food in Śrāvastī? Can one even obtain enough to have some left over to carry along?”

The brahmacārin said:

“One can obtain food by begging.”

The brahmin asked:

“From whom is it so easy to obtain?”

The brahmacārin replied:

“From the bald-headed householder.”

The brahmin asked again:

“Who is the bald-headed householder?”

The brahmacārin said:

“It is none other than the ascetic Gautama.”

The brahmin indignantly said:

“What sort of person are you, that you eat another’s food and then speak maliciously of him in this way?”

That brahmin went to the Sangha monastery and related to the bhikkhus what he had heard.

The bhikkhus reported this matter in full to the Blessed One.

Because of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and said:

“From now on, I shall establish a precept for the bhikkhus, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the True Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu gives food to a male or female naked ascetic of another path, it is a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One thus established this precept for the bhikkhus. The followers of other paths all complained resentfully:

“One or two followers of other paths committed a fault, but what offense have we committed that food should not be given to us?”

The bhikkhus reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“From now on, if bhikkhus wish to give them food, they should place it on the ground for them or have another person give it.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu personally gives food into the hands of a male or female naked ascetic of another path,^[260] it is a pācittiya offense.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Follower of another path: this refers specifically to a naked ascetic belonging to another school.^[261]

Pa-ssu-pa-la-ja:^[262] a person who has gone forth among those followers of other paths.

Khādanīya food: food made from roots and tubers, up to and including food made from fruit; food made with oil, up to and including pulverized food.

Food:^[263] rice, flour cakes, dried rice, fish, and meat.

If a bhikkhu personally gives food into the hands of a male or female naked ascetic of another path, it is a pācittiya offense. If he gives it and the recipient accepts it, he commits a pācittiya offense; if the recipient does not accept it, he commits a dukkaṭa offense. If he makes preparations intending to give it but does not give it, and then regrets it, in every such case he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a dukkaṭa offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if one places the food on the ground for them; has another person give it; presents it to one’s parents; [665a1] gives it to artisans building a stupa or to workers constructing dwellings, paying them wages according to the value of their work; or is compelled by force.

Those who do not commit an offense are: one who committed the first offense before the precept was established, one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLII. GOING TO ANOTHER HOUSE BEFORE OR AFTER A MEAL WITHOUT INFORMING ANYONE^[264]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Śrāvastī. At that time, in the city of Śrāvastī, there was a wealthy and eminent householder who had formerly been a close friend of Bhaddananda the Śākyan. He thought: “If Bhaddananda the Śākyan comes to this city, I shall arrange a meal for his sake and make an offering to the Sangha.”

Later, Bhaddananda the Śākyan entered the city. When the householder learned of this, he immediately sent someone to the Sangha monastery to invite the bhikkhus to a meal the following morning.

That night, the householder prepared abundant, delicious, and nourishing food and drink. The next morning, he sent word that it was time. The bhikkhus donned their robes, took up their bowls, went to the householder’s home, and sat in the seats prepared for them. The bhikkhus said to the householder:

“The Sangha has assembled. Since the food and drink have been prepared, please serve them.”

The householder said:

“Venerable ones, please wait a little while. Let us wait until Bhaddananda the Śākyan arrives.”

The bhikkhus said:

“The Sangha has assembled. If the food and drink have already been prepared, then serve them. Why must we wait? The sun is nearly past midday. We fear that the bhikkhus will not have time to eat their fill.”

The householder then said to the bhikkhus:

“Previously I made a vow that if Bhaddananda the Śākyan came to this city, I would arrange a meal for his sake and make an offering to the Sangha. Therefore, venerable ones, please wait a little while for Bhaddananda.”

That day, at the time of the light morning meal, Bhaddananda went to another house and did not return until nearly midday. When the bhikkhus saw that it was almost past midday, although they received food and drink, they were unable to eat their fill.

Among the bhikkhus were some who had few desires and were content, practiced the dhūta austerities, delighted in studying the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They reproached Bhaddananda the Śākyan:

“Bhaddananda the Śākyan, why did you go to another house at the time of the light morning meal and not arrive until nearly midday, causing the bhikkhus to be unable to eat their fill?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, paid homage at the Buddha’s feet, and sat down to one side. They then reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and, using countless means, rebuked Bhaddananda the Sakyan:

“Your conduct was wrong. It was not in accordance with proper deportment, not the conduct of a renunciant, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Bhaddananda the Sakyan, why, during the time of the morning meal, did you go to other households and arrive only when it was nearly midday, thereby preventing the bhikkhus from receiving sufficient food?”

After rebuking Bhaddananda in countless ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is the first offender under this rule and a field in which many seeds of the taints are planted. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish this precept, endowed with the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, having previously accepted an invitation, goes to another household during the time of the morning meal,^[265] he commits a pācittiya offense.

Thus the Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, in the city of Rājagṛha, there was a high minister who had formerly been a close friend of Bhaddananda the Sakyan. One day, that high minister obtained some sweet fruit.^[266] He sent a man with these instructions:

“Bhaddananda the Sakyan was formerly a close friend of mine. Take this fruit to the monastery, show it to him, and say clearly, ‘You and I are old friends. Please distribute this fruit among the Sangha on my behalf.’”

The messenger obeyed and brought the oranges to the monastery. He said to the bhikkhus:

“Venerable Ones, this is fresh fruit offered to the Sangha.”

The bhikkhus said:

“If it is offered to the Sangha, it should be distributed at once.”

The man replied:

“The high minister in the city of Rājagṛha instructed me, ‘Take this fruit to the monastery and ask Bhaddananda the Sakyan to distribute it to the Sangha.’ We must now wait until Bhaddananda the Sakyan arrives, and then it will be distributed to the Sangha.”

At that time, after the meal, Bhaddananda had gone to another household. By the time he returned, the proper time had passed, and the Sangha could no longer eat the fresh fruit.

When the bhikkhus learned of this, those among them who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhūta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread criticized Bhaddananda:

“Why did you go to another household after the meal and return only after the proper time had passed, thereby preventing the bhikkhus from eating such fresh fruit?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, paid homage at the Buddha’s feet, and sat down to one side. They then reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked Bhaddananda the Sakyan:

“Your conduct was wrong. It was not in accordance with proper deportment, not the conduct of a renunciant, not pure conduct, not conduct in harmony with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Bhaddananda the Sakyan, why, after finishing your meal, did you go to another household and return only after the proper time had passed, thereby preventing the bhikkhus from eating the fresh fruit?”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, having previously accepted an invitation, goes to another household before or after the meal, he commits a pācittiya offense.

Thus the Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, there were many places in the city of Rājagṛha where the Sangha was invited, but the bhikkhus were afraid and did not dare accept invitations to enter the city. The matter was reported to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to inform one another before entering the city.”

The bhikkhus did not know whom they should inform. The Buddha said:

“They should inform another bhikkhu. If one is staying alone in a room, one should inform the bhikkhu in the neighboring room.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, having previously accepted an invitation, goes to another household before or after the meal without informing another bhikkhu, he commits a pācittiya offense.

Thus the Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, there was a sick bhikkhu who had previously asked a donor’s household to prepare soup, gruel, and rice. He was afraid and did not dare enter the city, fearing that he would commit an offense by going to another household after the meal. The matter was reported to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“I permit a sick bhikkhu to enter the city without informing another bhikkhu.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, having previously accepted an invitation, goes to another household before or after the meal without informing another bhikkhu, except on a special occasion, he commits a pācittiya offense. The special occasion is a time of illness.

Thus the Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, the season for making robes had arrived. The bhikkhus needed such things as large pots, small pots, jars, spoons, bowls, axes, cups, basins, small bowls, kettles, drying cords, robe hangers, y-ni-diên-đà robes, and woolen cloth. Because they were afraid, the bhikkhus did not dare enter the city, fearing that they would commit an offense by entering the village without informing another bhikkhu. The Buddha said:

“From now on, during the season for making robes, I permit the bhikkhus to enter the village without informing another bhikkhu.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, having previously accepted an invitation, goes to another household before or after the meal without informing another bhikkhu, except on a special occasion, he commits a pācittiya offense. The special occasions are a time of illness and the season for making robes.

Thus the Blessed One established this precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, the season for the offering of robes had arrived. In some places robes had already been offered, while in other places they were still being sought. The bhikkhus were afraid and did not dare enter the city, fearing that they would commit an offense by entering without informing another bhikkhu. The Buddha said:

“From now on, during the season for the offering of robes, I permit the bhikkhus to enter the city without informing another bhikkhu.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu, having previously accepted an invitation, goes to another household [666a1] before or after the meal without informing another bhikkhu,^[267] except on a special occasion, he commits a pācittiya offense. The special occasions are a time of illness and the season for making robes. These are the special occasions.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

Before the meal: from the appearance of dawn until the time of eating.

After the meal: from the time of eating until midday.^[268]

Household: a place where men and women reside.

Other bhikkhus: those who dwell together within the same boundary.

Illness: as explained above.

The season for making robes: after the invitation ceremony, it lasts for one month if the kaṭhina robe has not been accepted, and for five months if the kaṭhina robe has been accepted. In addition, occasions when people are encouraged to offer food, including the offering of robes, also belong to the season for the offering of robes.

If a bhikkhu announces that he is going to a village but turns back midway, his previous notification is no longer valid. If he wishes to go again, he must give notice again. If a bhikkhu announces that he is going to a village but does not go to the place he specified and instead goes to another household, his previous notification is no longer valid. If he wishes to go there, he must give notice again before he may go.

If he announces that he is going to a layperson’s house but instead goes to a storehouse, a settlement, or an outlying room;^[269] or if he goes to a bhikkhunī monastery, or goes to a layperson’s house and immediately returns, his previous notification likewise becomes invalid. He must give notice again before he may go. If a bhikkhu, having already accepted an invitation, goes to another household before or after the meal without informing another bhikkhu that he is entering the village, except on a special occasion, he commits a pācittiya offense. If one foot is inside the doorway and one foot is outside, or if he makes preparations, adorns himself, and intends to go but does not go, in every such case he commits a dukkaṭa offense.

For a bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, sāmaṇera, or sāmaṇerī, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense: when ill; during the robe-making period; during the period for offering robes; when another bhikkhu has been informed; or when there is no bhikkhu and one does not inform anyone;^[270] when going to a storehouse, a village, or an outlying lodging; when going to a bhikkhu’s monastery; when going to a lay household after instructing them to send word; when, at a place with many houses, one spreads out a sitting cloth and invites a bhikkhu; when compelled by force; or when there is danger to one’s life or danger to the holy life. In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend are: the first offender before the rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLIII. SITTING IN A HOUSE WHERE THERE IS FOOD^[271]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Savatthi. At that time, while the Venerable Kaludayi was still a layman, he had been intimate with the wife of a lay friend. Her name was Trai, and she was beautiful in appearance. Kaludayi was also handsome. Kaludayi was attracted to the female lay devotee Trai, and the female lay devotee Trai was likewise attracted to Kaludayi.

That day, when it was time to go for alms, Kaludayi put on his robe, took his bowl, went to the home of the female lay devotee Trai, and sat down on a seat. At that time, the female lay devotee Trai had bathed and adorned herself. Her husband loved and respected her wholeheartedly, and so they were never apart.

The husband asked Kaludayi:

“What do you need?”

Kaludayi replied:

“I need food.”

The husband then told his wife to bring him food. In accordance with her husband’s words, the wife brought food and gave it to Kaludayi. After Kaludayi had finished eating, he remained seated in the same place and did not leave. The husband asked Kaludayi:

“Just now you said that you needed food. Now that you have eaten, why do you not leave?”

At that moment, the female lay devotee Trai signaled Kaludayi not to leave. Her husband became angry and said to Kaludayi:

“This bhikkhu is obstructing my affairs.^[272] You said you needed food, and now that you have been given food, why do you not leave? What else do you intend to do here? I shall leave the house to you and go. Stay here and do whatever you please!”

Having angrily spoken in this way, the husband left the house and went away.

At that time, a bhikkhu on almsround happened to arrive at the house. Hearing this, he reproached Kaludayi:

“Why do you persist in sitting in a house where there is food^[273]?”

The bhikkhu on almsround left the city of Savatthi and returned to the monastery, where he related this entire matter to the bhikkhus. Among them, those who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread reproached Kaludayi:

“Why do you persist in sitting in a house where there is food?”

The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, paid homage at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and fully reported this matter to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus. Although he knew what had occurred, he nevertheless asked Kaludayi:

“Is it true that you remained seated in a house where there was food?”

Kaludayi replied:

“Blessed One, it is true.”

The Blessed One reproached Kaludayi in countless ways:

“What you did was wrong. It was not proper conduct, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma, and something that ought not to have been done. Why did you remain seated in a house that gives food and contains treasure?”

After reproaching Kaludayi in countless ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is a breeding ground for many kinds of defilements. He is the first offender against this rule. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be recited as follows:

If any bhikkhu deliberately lingers and sits in a house where there is food^[274] and treasure,^[275] it is a pacittiya offense.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE RULE

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

Food: a man takes a woman as food, and a woman takes a man as food; therefore it is called food.

House: as explained above.

Treasure: mother-of-pearl, agate, pearl, amber, gold, and silver.

If a bhikkhu is in a house where there is food and treasure, he may sit where, by extending his arm, he can touch the door. If a bhikkhu deliberately lingers and sits in a house where there is food and treasure, it is a pacittiya offense. If there is a person who is blind but not deaf, it is a dukkata offense. If there is a person who is deaf but not blind, it is likewise a dukkata offense. If he stands but does not sit, it is a dukkata offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense. For a siksamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense: if one enters a house where there is food and treasure and sits where, by extending one’s arm, one can touch the door; if two bhikkhus are companions; if an acquaintance is present; if a visitor who is neither blind nor deaf, neither deaf nor blind, is present there; if one merely passes through without stopping; if one suddenly becomes ill and falls to the ground; if one is detained by force; if one is bound and confined; or if there is danger to one’s life or danger to the holy life. In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend are: the first offender before the rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLIV. SITTING WITH A WOMAN IN A CONCEALED PLACE^[276]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Savatthi. At that time, while the Venerable Kaludayi was still a layman, he had been intimate with the wife of a lay friend. Her name was Trai, and she was beautiful in appearance. Kaludayi was also handsome. Kaludayi was attracted to the female lay devotee Trai, and the female lay devotee Trai was likewise attracted to Kaludayi.

When it was time to go for alms, Kaludayi put on his robe, took his bowl, and went to the home of the female lay devotee Trai. He thought to himself, “The Blessed One has prohibited sitting in a house where there is food and treasure, but has permitted sitting in a place where, by extending one’s arm, one can touch the door.” He therefore sat behind the door.

While Kaludayi and the female lay devotee Trai were conversing, a bhikkhu on almsround arrived. He heard Kaludayi’s voice but could not see where Kaludayi was, and so he reproached him:

“Why, in a house where there is food [667a1] and treasure, do you sit in a concealed place, leaving us unable to know what you are doing?”

The bhikkhu on almsround left the city of Savatthi and returned to the monastery, where he related this matter to the bhikkhus. Among them, those who had few desires, were content, practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread reproached Kaludayi:

“Why, in a house where there is food and treasure, do you sit in a concealed place?”

The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, paid homage at the Buddha’s feet, sat to one side, and fully reported this matter to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus. Although he knew what had occurred, he nevertheless asked Kaludayi:

“Is it true that, in a house where there was food and treasure, you sat in a concealed place?”

Kaludayi replied:

“Venerable Blessed One, it is indeed true.”

The Blessed One reproached Kaludayi in countless ways:

“What you did was wrong. It was not proper conduct, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma, and something that ought not to have been done. Why, in a house where there is food and treasure, did you sit in a concealed place?”

After reproaching Kaludayi, the Buddha told the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is a breeding ground for many kinds of defilements. He is the first offender against this rule. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be recited as follows:

If any bhikkhu sits in a concealed place in a house where there is food and treasure,^[277] it is a pacittiya offense.

B. ANALYSIS OF THE RULE

Bhikkhu: as explained above.

Food: a woman is food for a man, and a man is food for a woman.

Treasure: mother-of-pearl, agate, pearl, amber, gold, and silver.

A concealed place: whether concealed by a tree, wall, partition, fence, robe, or some other object.

If a bhikkhu enters a dining hall in a household containing valuables, sits in a concealed place, and extends his hand to touch the door so that an almsgoing bhikkhu can see him, there is no offense. If a bhikkhu sits in a concealed place in a dining hall in a household containing valuables, it is a pacittiya offense. If the person is blind but not deaf, it is a dukkata offense. If the person is deaf but not blind, or if the bhikkhu stands rather than sits, it is a dukkata offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense. For a sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense: if, in a household where there is food and valuables, he sits in a place where he can extend his arm and touch the door so that an almsgoing bhikkhu can see him; if two bhikkhus are companions; if an acquaintance is nearby; if he is in the same place as a visitor who is neither blind nor deaf; if he merely passes by without stopping; if he unexpectedly falls unconscious from illness or is restrained by force; if he is bound and confined; or if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life. In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend: the first offender before the rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLV. SITTING ALONE WITH A WOMAN IN AN OPEN PLACE^[278]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove, at Sravasti. At that time, before the Venerable Kaludayin had gone forth, he had been closely acquainted with the wife of a lay friend. That woman was named Trai,^[279] and she was beautiful in appearance. Kaludayin was also handsome. Kaludayin was attracted to the upasika Trai, and the upasika Trai was likewise attracted to Kaludayin.^[280]

When it was time for alms, Kaludayin donned his robe, took his bowl, and went to the home of the upasika Trai, where the two sat together in an open place and conversed. An almsgoing bhikkhu arrived and saw Kaludayin sitting together with the upasika Trai and conversing. He reproached Kaludayin, saying, “Why do you sit together with the upasika Trai in an open place and converse with her?”

After completing his alms round, the bhikkhu returned to the Sangharama and related this matter to the other bhikkhus. Among them were those of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They reproached Kaludayin, saying:

“Why do you sit together with the upasika Trai in an open place and converse with her?”

The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus. Though he already knew, he questioned Kaludayin:

“Is it true that you sat together with the upasika Trai in an open place and conversed with her?”

Kaludayin replied:

“Venerable Blessed One, it is indeed so.”

The Blessed One reproached Kaludayin in countless ways:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, and not a practice in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Kaludayin, why did you sit together with the upasika Trai in an open place and converse with her?”

After reproaching Kaludayin, the Buddha addressed the bhikkhus:

“This foolish man is the first offender under this rule and a ground in which many kinds of defilements are planted. From now on, I establish a precept for the bhikkhus, for the ten beneficial purposes, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If any bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in an open place, it is a pacittiya offense.

B. EXPOSITION OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Woman: a human female who is conscious and whose life faculty has not been severed.

Alone: one woman and one bhikkhu.

A concealed place:^[281] concealed from sight or concealed from hearing.

– Concealed from sight: when, because of dust, mist, or darkness, the face cannot be seen.

– Concealed from hearing: when ordinary speech cannot be heard.

If any bhikkhu sits alone with a woman in an open place, it is a pacittiya offense. If the person is blind but not deaf, it is a dukkata offense. If the person is deaf but not blind, it is a dukkata offense. If the bhikkhu stands rather than sits, it is a dukkata offense.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pacittiya offense. For a sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense: if two bhikkhus are companions; if an acquaintance is nearby; if there is a visitor there who is neither blind nor deaf, neither deaf nor blind; if he merely passes by without stopping; if he unexpectedly falls down from illness or is compelled by force; if he is bound and confined; or if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life.

Those who do not offend: the first offender before the rule was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLVI. SENDING A BHIKKHU AWAY WITHOUT GIVING HIM FOOD^[282]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove, at Sravasti. At that time, Bhadda Nanda the Sakyan had quarreled with other bhikkhus,^[283] who compelled him to confess and repent. Bhadda Nanda harbored resentment in his heart. Later, Bhadda Nanda the Sakyan said to one of those bhikkhus:

“Follow me into the village. I will give you food.”

The other bhikkhu agreed.

When it was time for alms, Bhadda Nanda donned his robe, took his bowl, and entered the city of Sravasti together with that bhikkhu. He led him to an area where there was no food. Bhadda Nanda wandered around everywhere. When it was nearly past midday, Bhadda Nanda thought:

“If this bhikkhu leaves the city of Sravasti and returns to the Jeta Grove, it will already be past noon.”

Bhadda Nanda then said to the other bhikkhu:

“There has never been anyone as exceedingly wicked as you!”

The other bhikkhu asked:

“What offense have I committed?”

Bhadda Nanda replied:

“Today you have caused me to obtain no food. Venerable, quickly go elsewhere. If I sit or converse with you, I meet with misfortune. When I sit alone and converse alone, I am at ease.”

After speaking thus to the bhikkhu, Bhadda Nanda went to a place in the city of Sravasti where food was available and received food. Meanwhile, by the time the other bhikkhu left the city of Sravasti and returned to the Jeta Grove, it was already past midday. He could no longer eat and had to go hungry.

The bhikkhus heard of this. Among them were those of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhutanga austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They reproached Bhadda Nanda the Sakyan:

“Why did you tell that bhikkhu to accompany you into the village, saying that you would give him food, but in the end give him no food and instead say, ‘Venerable, quickly go elsewhere. If I sit or converse with you, I meet with misfortune. When I sit alone and converse alone, I am at ease’? You sent that bhikkhu back to the Jeta Grove, and by then it was past midday, [668a1] so that in the end he had to go hungry.”

The bhikkhus then went to the Blessed One, bowed at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and reproached Bhadda Nanda the Sakyan:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a samana, not pure conduct, and not a practice in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Why did you tell that bhikkhu to accompany you into the village, saying that you would give him food, but in the end give him no food and instead say, ‘Venerable, quickly go elsewhere! If I sit or converse with you, I meet with misfortune. When I sit alone and converse alone, I am at ease’? You sent that bhikkhu back to the Jeta Grove, and by then it was past midday, so that in the end he had to go hungry.”

Then the Blessed One reproached Bhadda Nanda the Sakyan in countless ways and addressed the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are the ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted; they are the first offenders against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring presence of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu says to another bhikkhu, ‘Venerable sir, come with me into the village, and I shall give you food,’ but afterward does not give that bhikkhu food and says, ‘Elder, go away from here quickly! If I sit or converse with you, I am uncomfortable. When I sit alone and converse alone, I am at ease,’ and, with that purpose alone and no other, deliberately drives him away, he commits a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

Village:^[284] there are four kinds, as explained above.

Food: food eaten at the proper time.

That bhikkhu says to this bhikkhu, “Come into the village, and I shall give you food.” Afterward, he does not give this bhikkhu food but says, “Elder, go away from here quickly! If I sit or converse with you, I am uncomfortable. When I sit alone and converse alone, I am at ease.” If, by some means, he drives that bhikkhu away to a place where he can neither be seen nor heard, he commits a pācittiya offense.

If he drives him to a place where he cannot be seen but can still be heard, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If he drives him to a place where he cannot be heard but can still be seen, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If he employs some means to drive him away and the other bhikkhu himself leaves the range of both sight and hearing, the former commits a pācittiya offense.

If the other bhikkhu leaves the range of sight but remains within hearing, or leaves the range of hearing but remains within sight, the former commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if, after giving him food, one asks him to leave; if one is ill; if the other lacks proper deportment and displeases those who see him, and one therefore says, ‘Go! I shall bring food to you in the monastery’; if the other has corrupted the precepts, corrupted right view, or corrupted proper deportment; if he has been formally accused before the assembly, expelled, or deserves expulsion; if there is danger to life or danger to the holy life; or if one employs some means to ask him to leave without doing so out of hatred. In all such cases, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend are: the first offender before the precept was established; one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLVII. FOUR MONTHS OF MEDICINE ^[285]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in the Nigrodha Grove at Kapilavastu, in the land of the Śākyans.^[286] At that time, Mahānāma of the Śākya clan vowed to provide medicine for the Sangha. The donor respectfully honored the senior elders and therefore offered them fine things, whether they needed them or not.

At that time, the group of six bhikkhus said to one another, “This Śākyan Mahānāma has vowed to provide medicine for the Sangha. Because he respectfully honors the senior elders, he offers them fine things. He has no respect for us and therefore gives us inferior things. Even when we ask, he does not give them to us, much less when we do not ask.” They then said to one another, “Let us go to his house and request things that are difficult to obtain and medicines that cannot be procured.”^[287]

Having discussed this, they immediately went to Mahānāma’s house and said:

“We need such-and-such medicines.”

Mahānāma said:

“If they are in my house, I shall offer them. If they are not, I shall go to the market, buy them, and provide them.”

The group of six bhikkhus said:

“How could such-and-such medicines not be found in your house?”

Mahānāma said:

“If they are in my house, I shall offer them at once. If they are not, I shall go to the market, buy them, and offer them.”

The group of six bhikkhus then said:

“You vowed to offer medicine to the Sangha. Yet because you respectfully honor the senior elders, you offer them fine things. Whether or not they need them, you still make offerings to them. But you show neither kindness nor respect toward the junior monks and therefore give them inferior things. Even when they ask, they receive nothing, much less when they do not ask. If there is no medicine in your house, why did you vow to offer medicine to the Sangha? You are partial, and you also speak falsely.”

Mahānāma said:

“Previously, I vowed to provide the Sangha with whatever medicine was in my house. If it was not in my house, I would go to the market and buy it for them. Why do you now say that I am partial, speak falsely, and lack sincerity? Elders, go away! From now on, I shall no longer provide medicine for the Sangha.”

At that time, the bhikkhus heard of this matter. Among them were those of few desires, who were content, practiced the dhūta austerities, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed a sense of shame and moral dread. They criticized the group of six bhikkhus, saying, “The Śākyan Mahānāma delights in showing respect and giving alms and has always provided medicine for the Sangha. Why did you insult him by saying that he was partial and spoke falsely, causing him no longer to provide medicine for the Sangha?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, paid homage at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then fully reported this matter to the Blessed One. Because of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the group of six bhikkhus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. The Śākyan Mahānāma has faith, delights in giving, and has always provided medicine for the Sangha. Why did you insult him by saying that he was partial and spoke falsely, thereby causing him no longer to provide medicine for the Sangha?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in countless ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are the ground in which many seeds of the outflows are planted; they are the first offenders against this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I shall establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring presence of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu has received an invitation to be supplied with medicine for four months,^[288] he may accept it. If he accepts beyond that period, he commits a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. At that time, some ill bhikkhus, being apprehensive, did not dare accept medicine beyond that period. They reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“From now on, ill bhikkhus are permitted to accept medicine beyond four months.”

From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu who is not ill has received an invitation to be supplied with medicine for four months, and he accepts beyond that period, he commits a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. At that time, some householders gave standing invitations to provide medicine for the bhikkhus. Being apprehensive, the bhikkhus did not dare accept medicine provided under such standing invitations. They reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“From now on, bhikkhus are permitted to accept medicine provided under a standing invitation.” From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu who is not ill has received an invitation to be supplied with medicine for four months, and he accepts beyond that period, he commits a pācittiya offense, except in the case of a standing invitation.

The Blessed One established the precept for the bhikkhus in this way. At that time, the Śākyan Mahānāma thought, “I should not discontinue providing medicine for the Sangha because of one or two people. I should now invite the Sangha to accept my provision of medicine once again.” Having thought this, Mahānāma went to the monastery and said to the bhikkhus:

“May the venerable Sangha please accept my provision of medicine once again.”

Being cautious and apprehensive, the bhikkhus did not dare accept the renewed provision of medicine. They reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“From now on, bhikkhus are permitted to accept medicine offered under a renewed invitation.”

The bhikkhus included the days from the previous invitation in their calculation. They reported this to the Buddha. The Buddha said:

“The preceding days should not be counted. The calculation should begin from the day on which the provision is renewed.” From now on, the precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu who is not ill accepts a four-month invitation to receive medicinal offerings and continues to accept them beyond that period, it is a pācittiya offense, except in the case of a standing invitation or a renewed invitation.

The Blessed One thus established the precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, certain householders invited the bhikkhus to accept a share of medicines. Being apprehensive and cautious, the bhikkhus did not dare to accept them. They reported this to the Buddha, and the Buddha said:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to accept medicines offered as a share.”

From now on, the precept should be stated thus:

If a bhikkhu who is not ill accepts a four-month invitation to receive medicinal offerings and continues to accept them beyond that period, it is a pācittiya offense, except in the case of a standing invitation, a renewed invitation, or an invitation to receive a share.

The Blessed One thus established the precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, certain householders invited the bhikkhus to receive medicines for life. Being apprehensive and cautious, the bhikkhus did not dare to accept medicines for life. They reported this to the Buddha, and the Buddha said:

“From now on, I permit the bhikkhus to accept medicines for life.”

From now on, the precept should be established for the bhikkhus thus:

If a bhikkhu who is not ill accepts a four-month invitation to receive medicinal offerings and continues to accept them beyond that period, it is a pācittiya offense, except in the case of a standing invitation, a renewed invitation, an invitation to receive a share, or a lifelong invitation.^[289]

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Four months: the four months of the summer season.

Occasion:^[290] a vow to provide medicines.

Illness: when a physician instructs one to take that medicine.

Standing invitation: The donor says, “I vow to offer medicines regularly.”

Renewed invitation: after the invitation has ended, it is extended again.

Invitation to receive a share: the donor brings medicines to the Sangharama as an offering, and they are then distributed.

Lifelong invitation: The donor says, “I shall offer medicines for life.”

Invitations are of four kinds: one may limit the number of days but not the medicines; limit both the medicines and the days; limit the medicines but not the days; or limit neither the days nor the medicines.

What is meant by limiting the days but not the medicines? The donor specifies a period of time but does not determine the quantity of medicine, saying, for example, “I vow to offer medicines for such-and-such a number of days.” This is called an invitation that limits the days but not the medicines.

What is meant by limiting the medicines but not the days? The donor offers a specified quantity or kind of medicine but does not limit the duration, saying, “I offer this kind of medicine.” This is called an invitation in which the medicines are limited but the time is not limited.

What is meant by limiting both the medicines and the days? The donor vows to offer a specified quantity or kind of medicine during a fixed period, saying, “I promise to offer such medicines during such a period.” In this case, both the medicines and the time are fixed.

What is meant by limiting neither the medicines nor the days? The donor offers medicines without stating either the quantity of medicine or the duration, saying, “I wish to offer you medicines.” This is called an invitation in which neither the medicines nor the time is limited.

Of the four kinds of invitation described above, those in which the time is limited but the medicines are not, and those in which both the time and the medicines are limited, constitute acceptance of an invitation for the four months of the summer season.

Of the four kinds of invitation described above, where the medicines are limited but the time is not, or where neither the time nor the medicines are limited, one may accept according to the period during which the offerings are made. A bhikkhu who is not ill should accept the provision of medicines for the four months of the summer season. If he continues to accept them beyond that period, except in the case of a standing invitation, a renewed invitation, an invitation to receive a distributed share, or a lifelong invitation, he commits one pācittiya offense with each swallow.

For a bhikkhuni, it is a pācittiya offense. For a sikkhamana, samanera, or samaneri, it is a dukkata offense. This is called a transgression.

There is no offense when one accepts the provision of medicines during the four months; when, being ill, one accepts them beyond that period; or in the case of a standing invitation, a renewed invitation, an invitation to receive a distributed share, or a lifelong invitation. In all such cases, there is no offense.

There is no offense for the first transgressor before the precept was established, or for one who is insane, mentally deranged, afflicted by severe pain, or under duress.

XLVIII. VIEWING AN ARMY IN BATTLE ARRAY ^[291]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anathapindika’s Park in the Jeta Grove at Sravasti. At that time, the people of a certain region within King Prasenajit’s realm rebelled, and the King personally had to lead the six divisions of his army to suppress them.

At that time, the group of six bhikkhus went there to view the army in battle array. King Prasenajit asked:

“Venerable Ones, what business brings you here among these three armies?”

The group of six replied:

“We have no business here. We have come only to watch.”

When King Prasenajit heard this, he was displeased. The King then asked:

“Where do you intend to go?”

The group of six said:

“We shall go to Sravasti to pay our respects to the Blessed One.”

The King said:

“If the Venerable Ones go to Sravasti, please pay homage to the Blessed One in my name and inquire whether he is at ease when lying down and sitting, whether he is strong and healthy when walking and standing, and whether his work of teaching is overly wearisome. I send this packet of rock sugar as an offering to the Blessed One, and I ask the Venerable Ones to report this entire matter fully to him.”

The group of six bhikkhus then went to the Jetavana Monastery at Sravasti, paid homage at the feet of the Blessed One, and sat to one side. In King Prasenajit’s name, they paid homage to the Blessed One and inquired: “Are you at ease when lying down and sitting? Are you strong and healthy when walking and standing? Is your work of teaching overly wearisome?” They presented the packet of rock sugar to the Blessed One and fully reported the foregoing matter to him.

On account of this matter, the Blessed One rebuked the group of six bhikkhus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a renunciant, not pure conduct, not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what should not be done. You foolish men! Why did you go to view the might of the King’s army in battle array?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in innumerable ways, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are the source from which many outflows arise and are the first offenders against this precept. From now on, I shall establish a precept for the bhikkhus, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the long endurance of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated thus:

If a bhikkhu goes to view an army in battle array, it is a pācittiya offense.

The Blessed One thus established the precept for the bhikkhus. At that time, the people of a certain region within King Prasenajit’s realm rebelled. The King dispatched two ministers, who were brothers—the elder named Risidatta and the younger named Purana^[293]—to lead the army in suppressing them. These two ministers ardently wished to see the bhikkhus and therefore sent a messenger inviting the Venerable bhikkhus to come so that the two ministers might meet them. Being apprehensive and cautious, the bhikkhus said that the Blessed One had established the precept: “If a bhikkhu goes to view an army in battle array, it is a pācittiya offense.”

The bhikkhus then went and reported the matter to the Blessed One. The Buddha said:

“If there is a necessary matter to report or if one has been invited, I permit one to go.”

From now on, the precept should be stated thus:

If a bhikkhu goes to view an army in battle array,^[294] it is a pācittiya offense, except on a proper occasion.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: as defined above.

Battle: either warfare or combat.

Army: either one division, two divisions, three divisions, or four divisions.

– One division: one elephant division, one cavalry division, one chariot division, or one infantry division. It may also consist entirely of cavalry, elephants, infantry, or chariots.

– Two divisions: two elephant units, two cavalry units, two chariot units, or two infantry units; or a combination of elephants and cavalry, elephants and chariots, elephants and infantry, cavalry and chariots, cavalry and infantry, or chariots and infantry.

– Threefold army: three elephants, three horses, three chariots, three infantrymen; or elephants, horses, and chariots; or elephants, horses, and infantry; or horses, chariots, and infantry.

– Fourfold army: four elephants, four horses, four chariots, four infantrymen; or elephants, horses, chariots, and infantry.

If that bhikkhu goes to watch an army in battle, proceeding from one road to another, from a road to a place that is not a road, from a place that is not a road to a road, from low ground to high ground, or from high ground to low ground, and upon arriving sees it, he commits a pācittiya offense. If he arrives but does not see it, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

If he makes preparations, intending to go and watch, but does not go, every such act constitutes a duṣkṛta offense. If a bhikkhu is already traveling on a road and an army in battle subsequently approaches from behind, the bhikkhu should move aside to the edge of the road. If he does not move aside, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if the bhikkhu has necessary business there; if he has been invited to go; if he is compelled by force; if he was traveling ahead and the army in battle arrived afterward, and he moved aside to the edge of the road; if the waterway or land route is cut off; if there is danger from bandits, savage beasts, or flooding; if he is forcibly [670a1] bound and led away; or if there is danger to his life or to his brahmacarya, and he does not move aside to the edge of the road.

Those who do not offend are one who committed the act for the first time before the precept was established, one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress.

XLIX. STAYING OVERNIGHT WITH AN ARMY^[295]

A. ORIGIN

At one time, the Buddha was staying in Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park, in the Jeta Grove, in the country of Śrāvastī. At that time, the group of six bhikkhus had occasion to enter a military encampment and stayed there overnight. When the householders saw them, they said to one another, “We sleep here at night because of our family attachments. But what business do these śramaṇas have staying here?”

The bhikkhus heard of this matter. Among them were those of few desires and contentment, who practiced the dhūta observances, delighted in training in the precepts, and possessed conscience and moral dread. They reproached the group of six bhikkhus, saying, “The Blessed One has established a precept allowing one to enter a military encampment only when there is an occasion to do so. Why, then, did you stay overnight in a military encampment?”

The bhikkhus went to the Blessed One, bowed their heads at the Buddha’s feet, and sat to one side. They then reported this matter in full to the Blessed One. On account of this matter, the Blessed One immediately assembled the Sangha of bhikkhus and rebuked the group of six bhikkhus:

“What you have done is wrong. It is not proper deportment, not the conduct of a śramaṇa, not pure conduct, and not conduct in accordance with the Dharma. You have done what ought not to be done. Group of six bhikkhus, one may enter a military encampment only when there is an occasion to do so. Why did you stay overnight in a military encampment when you had no business there?”

After rebuking the group of six bhikkhus in innumerable ways, the Blessed One told the bhikkhus:

“These foolish men are the ground in which many kinds of outflows are planted. They are the first to violate this precept. From now on, for the sake of the bhikkhus, I establish this precept, comprising the ten benefits, up to and including the enduring preservation of the true Dharma.”

The precept should be stated as follows:

If a bhikkhu who has occasion to enter a military encampment is permitted to stay for two or three nights, but stays longer than that, he commits a pācittiya offense.

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRECEPT

Bhikkhu: the meaning is as explained above.

If a bhikkhu has occasion to enter a military encampment, he is permitted to stay for two nights. By the third night, before dawn appears, he should go to a place beyond both sight and hearing. After that bhikkhu has remained with the army for two full nights, if, on the third night before dawn appears, he does not leave the range of hearing and sight, then when dawn appears he commits a pācittiya offense.

If he leaves the range of sight but remains within the range of hearing, he commits a duṣkṛta offense. If he leaves the range of hearing but remains within the range of sight, he commits a duṣkṛta offense.

For a bhikkhunī, it is a pācittiya offense. For a śikṣamāṇā, śrāmaṇera, or śrāmaṇerī, it is a duṣkṛta offense. This is called an offense.

There is no offense if, after two nights, on the third night before dawn appears, he leaves the range of both hearing and sight; or if a waterway or land route is cut off; if there is danger from savage beasts or bandits, or flooding; if he is forcibly detained; if he is bound and confined; or if there is danger to his life or to his brahmacarya. In all such cases, he may stay with the army for two nights; and if, when dawn appears on the third night, he has not left the range of sight and hearing, there is no offense.

Those who do not offend are one who committed the act for the first time before the precept was established, one who is insane, mentally deranged, tormented by pain, or under duress. ^[296]

Notes:

^[239] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 7, pācittiya 39; Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 16, pācittiya 35; Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 13; Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 36, pācittiya 38. Pali, Pāc. 40, dantapona.

^[240] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 7 (T22n1421, p. 53a20): Mahākāśyapa picked up and ate food that people had discarded on a refuse heap; he was criticized for eating filthy food. Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 16 (T22n1425, p. 357a05): Aniruddha lived entirely by refuse-rags and discarded food: he gathered rags to make robes and picked rice from refuse heaps to eat; he was criticized for competing with birds for food. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 13 (T23n1435, p. 95c25): the bhikkhu Mahākāla; Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 36 (T23n1442, p. 825a27): the venerable Kāla. The circumstances resemble those in the other Vinayas, differing only in the person involved. Pali, Vin. iv. 89: aññataro bhikkhu sabbapaṃsukūliko susāne viharati, a certain bhikkhu who observed the refuse-rag practice in every respect lived in a cemetery.

^[241] Pali: adinnaṃ... āhāraṃ, food not given by another person.

^[242] Pali: adinnaṃ... āhāraṃ, food not given by another person.

^[243] “Not received,” 不受. In the explanation, it is said to mean “not given,” 不與; see note 245 below. Sarvāstivāda Vinaya: “not received,” 不受, meaning not received from another person. Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: “taking what is not given,” 不與取. Pali: adinna, something not given; explained as appaṭiggahitakaṃ, something not yet taken or accepted.

^[244] The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya adds: “except food tasted for seasoning (常食 嘗食).” The Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya: “putting it into the mouth, then chewing and swallowing.” Pali: aññatra udakadantapoṇā, understood in the English translation as “water for rinsing the mouth.”

^[245] “Not given,” 不與. The wording of the precept says “not received,” 不受. Pali: adinnaṃ. See note 243 above.

^[246] Cf. Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 7 (T22n1421, p. 53c20), which gives four ways of receiving: giving and receiving directly from body to body; giving and receiving through an object; giving and receiving from hand to hand; and telling someone to take it and thereby receive it.

^[247] This refers only to proper food, or bhojanīya; see note 209 above.

^[248] Ghee, oil, fresh butter, honey, and crystallized sugar.

^[249] Because it cannot be completely pulled out.

^[250] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya 8, pācittiya 41; Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya 16, 39; Sarvāstivāda Vinaya 13 and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya 36: 40. Pali, Pāc. 39.

^[251] Mixed food, 雜食. The wording of the precept calls it fine food, 美食. See the explanation below.

^[252] The text has “fine food.” Above, it is called “mixed food.” Pali: paṇītabhojāni, delicacies.

^[253] The text has “obtained,” 得. The Sarvāstivāda Vinaya says: “...there is,” 有, “in the house of a layperson.” The Mahīśāsaka Vinaya says: “...there is,” 有, “among households.”

^[254] Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya: “the kinds of food and drink that the Blessed One declared to be excellent.” Pali: paṇītabhojanāni, listed as sappi, curds or refined ghee; navanīta, clarified butter or fresh butter; tela, sesame oil; madhu, honey; phāṇita, cane sugar or granulated sugar; maccha, fish; maṃsa, meat; khīra, milk; dadhi, thickened milk.

^[255] The text has “food and drink”; in the passages above, the character for “drink,” 飲, does not occur.

^[256] “During a single sitting,” 一坐間; more precisely, this means being unable to eat one meal a day and be sufficiently nourished. The Pali definition of a sick person (gilāno) is one who needs fine food in order to feel well.

^[257] Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, pācittiya 40; Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya: 52; Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya: 44. Pali, Pāc. 41.

^[258] Chinese: “a female renunciant of the naked ascetics,” 裸形外道家女. The Chinese text contains a scribal error. More precisely, it should be “a female non-Buddhist renunciant” (Pali: paribbājikā). In the Pali wording of the precept, “naked ascetic,” acelakassa (Skt. acelakāya), is masculine. There is no female naked ascetic.

^[259] In the Pali Vinaya, the account concerns a male naked ascetic (acelaka).

^[260] The Chinese version lacks the two characters 裸形, “naked ascetic,” which were included in the text of the rule as first established. Pali: acelakassa vā paribbājakassa vā paribbājikāya vā, to a male naked ascetic, a male non-Buddhist renunciant, or a female non-Buddhist renunciant. The Mahāsāṅghika: an unclothed non-Buddhist ascetic and male and female renunciants. The Mūlasarvāstivāda: an unclothed non-Buddhist ascetic and other male and female non-Buddhist ascetics.

^[261] More precisely, this explains the term “naked ascetic” in the rule text. Perhaps through a copyist’s error, it was reversed and made into an explanation of the term “non-Buddhist ascetic.”

^[262] Ba-tư-ba-la-xà 波私波羅闍: an imprecise transliteration of Skt. parivrāja (male), parivrājikā (female); or Pali paribbāja (paribbājikā): a renunciant, referring to male and female wandering non-Buddhist ascetics. This explains the term “non-Buddhist ascetic” 外道 in the rule text.

^[263] This refers only to a proper meal, or bhojanīya.

^[264] Mahīśāsaka 9: pācittiya 82; Mahāsāṅghika 20; Sarvāstivāda 17; Mūlasarvāstivāda 43: 81. Pali, Pāc. 46.

^[265] The following passages speak of the time before a meal, prior to eating.

^[266] Sweet fruit 甘果. The Mahīśāsaka: cooked food 熟食, prepared food (fruit). Pali: khādānīya, solid food.

^[267] The Mahīśāsaka: failing to inform a nearby bhikṣu. If there is no bhikṣu nearby to inform, there is no offense.

^[268] After the meal 食後. The Mahāsāṅghika: after one has finished eating, while it is still early, is called “after the meal.” The Sarvāstivāda: before and after midday 中前中後.

^[269] A room at the edge 邊房. The Sarvāstivāda: a Sangha dwelling 僧坊.

^[270] Cf. the Mahīśāsaka.

^[271] The Mahīśāsaka: absent. Mahāsāṅghika, pācittiya 54; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 42. Pali, Pāc. 43.

^[272] According to the Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda accounts of the origin, a husband felt sexual desire for his wife but was obstructed by a bhikṣu who persisted in sitting there. This detail explains the phrase “a household with food”: a household engaged in the enjoyment of sensual pleasure.

^[273] A household with food 食家; see the explanation below.

^[274] A household with food 食家. The Sarvāstivāda: a household possessing food 有食家; explanation: the woman is the man’s food. The Mūlasarvāstivāda: knowing it to be a household possessing food 知有食家, knowing that the man and woman in the house feel sexual desire for each other. Pali: sabhojana, explained as a house containing a man and a woman, where the man and woman feel sexual desire for each other (ubho avītarāgā).

^[275] Valuables: the other Vinaya recensions do not contain this element. The Chinese version may have understood sabhojana (“possessing food”) as synonymous with sabhoga (“possessing requisites or wealth”).

^[276] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 42; Mahāsāṅghika: 70; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 42.

^[277] See n. 275. The Mahāsāṅghika does not contain this detail.

^[278] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 44; Mahāsāṅghika: absent; Mūlasarvāstivāda: absent; Sarvāstivāda: 29. Pali, Pāc. 45.

^[279] The Sarvāstivāda: the bhikṣuṇī Quật-đa 掘多比丘尼, a former intimate acquaintance.

^[280] Cf. rules 33 and 34 above and the related notes.

^[281] A concealed place 屏處. However, the rule text has “an open place” 露地. Pali: eko ekāya raho, the two being alone together in a secluded place.

^[282] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 76; Mahāsāṅghika: 44; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 51. Pali, Pāc. 42.

^[283] The Mahīśāsaka: the bhikṣu Dharma 達摩比丘.

^[284] Village 村. The rule text has “settlement” 聚落.

^[285] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 62; Mahāsāṅghika, Sarvāstivāda, and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 74. Pali, Pāc. 47.

^[286] Thích-suý-sấu 釋翅搜. Pali: Sakkesu, among the Sakyans.

^[287] Pali: they sought to discredit Mahānāma.

^[288] “A four-month invitation based upon the condition of an invitation to provide medicine” 四月(請)因緣請與藥. Here the first character 請, “invitation,” is superfluous. The term “condition” 因緣 is Pali paccaya, a requisite; here it refers to medicine, one of the four requisites or four necessities of a bhikṣu. The Mahīśāsaka: a four-month invitation to ask freely 四月自恣請. The Mahāsāṅghika: a separate four-month invitation to ask freely 四月別自恣請. The Sarvāstivāda: a four-month invitation to ask freely 四月自恣請. Pali: cātumāsapaccaya-pavāraṇā, being invited to ask freely for requisites during four months.

^[289] The Mūlasarvāstivāda has four exceptions: an individual invitation, a renewed invitation, an earnest invitation, and a standing invitation. The Sarvāstivāda has three exceptions: a standing invitation, a repeated invitation, and an individual invitation. The Mahīśāsaka has three exceptions: a renewed invitation, an invitation personally conveyed, and an extended invitation. The Mahāsāṅghika has two exceptions: a renewed invitation and an extended invitation. Pali has two exceptions: a further invitation (punapavāraṇa) and a standing invitation (niccapavāraṇa).

^[290] This term is used in the text of the rule as first established. In subsequent instances, the Chinese version omits it. Pali: paccaya, a requisite; here it refers to medicine as one of the four requisites of a bhikṣu.

^[291] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 45; Mahāsāṅghika: 55; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 45. Pali, Pāc. 48.

^[292] King Ba-tư-nặc 波斯匿王. Pali: Pasenadi, king of Kosala.

^[293] Lị-sư-đạt-đa and Phú-la-na 利師達多富羅那.

^[294] The Mahīśāsaka: observing the army setting out on campaign 觀軍發行.

^[295] Mahīśāsaka: pācittiya 46; Mahāsāṅghika: 56; Sarvāstivāda and Mūlasarvāstivāda: 46. Pali, Pāc. 49.

^[296] Here the Chinese version concludes fascicle 15.